| Title |
Predictors of unsuccessful pessary fitting in women with prolapse: a cross-sectional study in general practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-016-3107-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chantal M. C. R. Panman, Marian Wiegersma, Boudewijn J. Kollen, Huibert Burger, Marjolein Y. Berger, Janny H. Dekker |
| Abstract |
Pelvic organ prolapse is a common condition. There is inconsistency between predictors of unsuccessful pessary fitting in urological/gynaecological clinics. Research in general practice is scarce. The aim was to estimate the proportion of women in general practice with a symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse and unsuccessful pessary fitting, and to identify characteristics associated with unsuccessful pessary fitting. A cross-sectional study in general practice (n = 20) was carried out among women (≥55 years) with symptomatic prolapse (n = 78). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of unsuccessful pessary fitting. In total, 33 women (42 %) had unsuccessful pessary fitting. Factors associated with unsuccessful pessary fitting were age (per year, OR 0.93 [95 % CI 0.87-1.00]), body mass index (per kg/m(2), OR 1.14 [95 % CI 1.00-1.30]), and having underactive pelvic floor muscles (OR 2.60 [95 % CI 0.81-8.36]). Pessary fitting was successful in 58 %, indicating that pessary treatment may be suitable for many, but not for all women in general practice with symptomatic prolapse. The condition of the pelvic floor probably plays a role in the success of pessary fitting, as demonstrated by the association with underactive pelvic floor muscles, and body mass index. The association with age may reflect the higher acceptance of conservative treatments for prolapse in older women. This is the first study on predictive factors for unsuccessful pessary fitting in general practice. Therefore, further research should seek to confirm these associations before we can recommend the use of this information in patient counselling. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 80 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 31 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 15% |
| Engineering | 5 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 34 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,740,505
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#1,665
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,536
of 356,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#22
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 356,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.